Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

cm

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    288

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by cm

  2. Posted

    Oh, well. I'm getting the impression that some of the previewers don't actually know this (plus perhaps the other stuff that you said is not implemented yet in the preview mission). It's understandable that some of them react rather rough because the intended release date seems close, the memories of how Armed Assault was released probably don't help either. Wouldn't hurt to let them know, even at this point where most previews are already written, nothing stopping them from doing a quick update to their previews.

    Next time put important info like this it into the game as the loading screen, in big red letters. ;)

    Lol, I really think BIS needs to explain to reviewers what is and isn't missing and what's buggy when sending out previews. It would stop a lot of the problems with people complaining about destuctible buildings and the voice comms...

    And what is with all of the german/spanish/ sites. Canwe please get some english previews???? We are your biggest market after all...

  4. Posted

    Well to think that ArmA2 AI seemed to act like ArmA AI... What for example i am expecting is to AI to reach 2007 or 2008 year's level of "AI in combat"

    Problems?

    1. AIs rushed forward even when player killed couple of it's mates few seconds earlier. They had wall which they could have used as cover, they had tree which they could have used as cover. But what did they? They rushed forward in ArmA-style. Another kind of reactions have been part of computer games for years.

    2. On later part of video, AIs (two of them) just stood still on the open when there was several objects offering cover such as walls and buildings. Player wiped out both them one-by-one. What was AI's reaction in both cases. Another kinds of reactions also have been part of computer games for years.

    Sure those things could be put on chaos of combat-situation and not on worthlessness of AI. But overall this is quite common in ArmA2 trailers which presents infantry combat of ArmA2: AI doesnt' seem to have anything truly new. They are bunch of headless chicken still, so to speak.

    So... Until proven that AI is really better i will not believe it. And each time i see AI reacts/acts like AI in ArmA, instead of new and shiny Arma2, i grow more weary and uncertain.

    Should BIS do something about it? Release enlighting trailer of AI capabilities? Have Suma or someone smashing the whining with few facts? Overall seems that 30-50% of "whining" comes from AI. Or something...

    Um, I think you are talking about the wrong video.. :rolleyes:

  5. Posted · Edited by cm

    Video on sector.sk is probably laggy because reviewer rig is AMD X2 4400 ATI X2600XT 2GB RAM. And he quite enjoy playing, only he notice he has problem with some missing textures, that you can see in one video.

    Wow, that's pretty good if it's running on a 2600XT!!!! Those things are a POS compared to current gen hardware, which would explain the shite fps and texture lag.

  6. Posted · Edited by cm

    That was sarcasm?You have to try harder.

    I thought that you speak honestly about Ibiza cause thats what ArmA2 screens and vids say until now.That BIS doesnt work.:)

    lol, you just walked into that one....

    Looking at the previews... the AI seemed to be behind cover at least. The AI on the right was behind a car, and no one was in the middle of the road, all on the side AND facing opposite directions (so I assume covering thier arcs). Still kinda lame how they seem to rotate on the spot but the reaction times are no where near as bad as the other video, which is promising.

  9. Posted

    Those arma2 images you posted are all at medium settings (especially the NV one, which i think is even lower).

    If you looked at some of dysexics (sp) in game screen shots I'm sure you'd change your mind on what looks better.

    And I would also have to agree with one of the other guys that in some instances, Arma1 looks better then the above OFP DR screens.

    Some people really need to play it on max settings I think :|

    But the graphics aren't the be-all-and-end-all of the game. Whatever has the most realistic gameplay (hopefully with proper javelin optics :386:) will ultimately win.

    And lol at 35km view distance.

  12. Posted · Edited by cm

    I think the system is pretty much the same,

    not far from us = 100m

    far from us = 500m

    away = 1000m

    dangerously close = >50m

    close to us = 100-200m

    Just use those words as syntax/designation and it'll be same. like Code red = do somethins, so is close to us a 'secret word' for 100m :)

    I agree, 2 o'clock blabla...is more realistic, but i've been spoiled by it past 10 years, and it was bound to happen, currently it's possibly the only thing that makes Arma 2 feel different and fresh from all the new things out there. It was a need to change. Well eventually it would. Otherwise it wouldn't be much fresh, but games need to evolve.......

    I'm going to seem like a bit of a troll posting this much, but anyway...

    What the game needed was an increase in realism in certain areas. Landscape, physics, villages, sound etc. These all seem to have improved for the better (especially sound!). The old "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies perfectly here.

    You were "spoiled" with an "precise" system because it was designed to be just that - precise!. Which is why it is used in the military.

    Now... if the USMC use this as their targetting system in real life... then ignore everything I have said :p

    EDIT:

    If it was changed to NW,NE,S,W etc... but kept the 500m, 200m... it would be perfect IMO.

  14. Posted · Edited by cm

    'I think 2, o'clock, 500meters' is way too precise, the AI teammate here tells you exact coordinates. Now

    if they say to left, you scan left, don't move and scan left. and I think that whether they say 500m or far from us, the distance is same, and we'll get used pretty well to it.

    I disagree. This is how the targeting system works in the Australian Army (may have been updated since I last checked but i doubt it) and it is perfect. When you give directions to an enemy, you want it to be as precise as possible. In the army, you are taught to estimate distances, which is why you hear "50m", "100m" "500m" etc. You are taught what things look like at certain distances so you can better pinpoint the location of an object/enemy.

    It's not like they are saying "At 321mils, Enemy rifleman with AK-47 with 4 mags and 3 grenades, at 236.7m"

    It's perfect how it is in arma1. I don't know why they changed it:confused: The only improvement I can see is that they can target more than one enemy at a time.

  15. Posted · Edited by cm

    I'm gunna regret posting this later, but pethaps its the heat agging me on in my office.

    Here comes my radio rant... Yes they aren't finished, yes its WIP... but even if the radio sounds are 10% and they will be hiring zombie robots to do their radios for them - I will be going insane listening to this:

    Enemy Man!

    Man!

    Enemy Man!

    Scratch one!

    Man!

    "2, Target that MAN"

    "6, Target that MAN"

    "4, Target that MAN"

    "6, Target that MAN"

    Pilot! Grid! 821204 < What does that even mean?

    "0777016 ENEMY MAN!" < Now you tell me how your supposed to know what that is.

    Enemy to our left! < How far left? If they had to keep these sounds, "11 o'clock" makes more sense imo.

    Man Left!

    I think I should quote myself here, because I definately agree with you.

    And to further my comment. The old targeting system was perfect (almost) but the way they said "TARGET........ that....... MAN" was far from it.

    I think changing the "2 O'Clock....at 500m" (which was perfect) to "front, far from us" is pretty stupid. When we asked for less robotic voices, we didn't mean casual radio comms with "scratch that" and "far from us", we meant a better flowing speach system without the huge pauses and sudden changes in tone.

    The current Arma1 system was way better for targeting enemies.

    ArmaI / OFP:

    "2 O'Clock, Machine gunner at 500m"

    action: you look towards two O'clock and look ~500m out and spot the enemy. Takes 2-5 seconds.

    ARMAII:

    "Machine gunner, right, far from us"

    action: you scan the right side of you (pretty freaking big ark you're scanning) and look "far from us"... which is purely subjective and doesn't give any meaningful distance apart from maybe >100m... but again.. this is subjective. You finally spot the enemy after a good 10-15 seconds of scanning your "right" if he hasn't spotted you already.

    That's probably my only gripe so far. I know it's a WIP but i doubt they would put all that stuff in only to change it all back for release.

    The rest of it seems fantastic though. The sound engine is :yay::yay::bounce3: and the overall atmosphere seems reeaally good.

    I'm still really looking forward to the game but I think that radio comms has taken a step backwards rather than forward.

  18. Posted · Edited by cm

    Originally Posted by ohara

    Destructible houses was not iplmented in february build, please calm down and be patient, press version is from alpha, no final voiceover, no buildings destruction, not final UI and still some bugs. It for showing basic game conceps and overal atmosphere.

    While we are being smart arses....

    I just watched over a few old OFP youtube vids and I honestly think think the radio comms in flashpoint are way better than both ArmaII and Arma1 in terms of not being robotic.

    Why on earth you changed it is beyond me... The few little improvements in armaII are good, but the robot radio comms is still predominant (WIP i know).

    And to further my comment. The old targeting system was perfect (almost) but the way they said "TARGET........ that....... MAN" was far from it.

    I think changing the "2 O'Clock....at 500m" (which was perfect) to "front, far from us" is pretty stupid. When we asked for less robotic voices, we didn't mean casual radio comms with "scratch that" and "far from us", we meant a better flowing speach system without the huge pauses and sudden changes in tone.

    The current Arma1 system was way better for targeting enemies.

    ArmaI / OFP:

    "2 O'Clock, Machine gunner at 500m"

    action: you look towards two O'clock and look ~500m out and spot the enemy. Takes 2-5 seconds.

    ARMAII:

    "Machine gunner, right, far from us"

    action: you scan the right side of you (pretty freaking big ark you're scanning) and look "far from us"... which is purely subjective and doesn't give any meaningful distance apart from maybe >100m... but again.. this is subjective. You finally spot the enemy after a good 10-15 seconds of scanning your "right" if he hasn't spotted you already.

    That's probably my only gripe so far. I know it's a WIP but i doubt they would put all that stuff in only to change it all back for release.

    The rest of it seems fantastic though. The sound engine is :yay::yay::bounce3: and the overall atmosphere seems reeaally good.

    I'm still really looking forward to the game but I think that radio comms has taken a step backwards rather than forward.

    Maybe should you give a try and play OFP ! There's a lot of toys to play with :292:

    I played OFP when it came out (and years of modding mind you). But I havn't played it in so long I forgot what it was like.

  19. Posted

    Destructible houses was not iplmented in february build, please calm down and be patient, press version is from alpha, no final voiceover, no buildings destruction, not final UI and still some bugs. It for showing basic game conceps and overal atmosphere.

    I just watched over a few old OFP youtube vids and I honestly think think the radio comms in flashpoint are way better than both ArmaII and Arma1 in terms of not being robotic.

    Why on earth you changed it is beyond me... The few little improvements in armaII are good, but the robot radio comms is still predominant (WIP i know).

  23. Posted

    the worst dilemma is for the upgraders.... :(

    If you need to upgrade your system and stay up to date, it is wiser to upgrade to new socket system Corei7 motherboard.

    But an i7 compatible CPU (i7 940) with the same specs as Q9650 is 2 times more expensive.

    So if you are tight on budget, you may want to go for a low-speed-new-technology solution at the start with the hope of upgrading in a year to a faster CPU which will probably run ArmA2 better.

    If you are really really tight on budget, and have a very old system, you may upgrade to an old system with 775 socket motherboard and Q9650 quad-core cpu which will easily handle everything for at least another 2 years with some overclocking. I think this setup should run ArmA quite good if coupled with a decent Gfx card and a small fast SSD as stated by Ohara

    HAve you forgoten about AMD or what?

    Just buy yourself an AMD Phenom II X3 or X4. A full upgrade with a HD4870, 4GB RAM, decent mobo and X3 720 costs about $1200 AUD. I can play arma on max settings at about 40-50FPS with a 3km draw distance.

    You don't need to spend 2-3K on a PC to have something that is really fast.

×